In the context of this invention, a mixed content document includes any document where private text content is randomly intermixed with public text content. A practical example would be a business letter or similar document having client names, appointment schedules or travel information entered as the private content text, surrounded by formatted public text including for example salutational niceties and supportive explanatory or dissertational matter. The common result is an aggregation of private and public text.
Computers (e.g., office computers, desktop computers, portable computers, laptop computers, notebook computers, tablet computers, notepad computers, home computers, data terminals, “system access-points,” etc.) are often used to run applications that may initially write, format and later perhaps edit mixed content documents. Ordinary computers are generally not considered to be sufficiently secure to prepare mixed content documents which include the private text content. As is well known, unsecure computers may readily compromise the security of documents typed into their processing functions due to residual retention of the entered keyboard data as a latent image in memory, storage devices and registers. It is also well known that ordinary erase or delete commands do little to thwart this inherent security weakness because the entered private data may still remain in residual retention and may be “hacked-out” or retrieved by an ever-increasing variety of methods.
It is concern over the possibility of retrieving residual private text data inadvertently left behind by the casual user of an unsecure computer that serves to highlight the advantage offered by this invention. In other words, when the user must enter private components of a mixed content document information into an unsecured computer, this invention enables encryption of the private text matter independent from the computer's hardware and meanwhile the public text portions may be openly submitted without obfuscation.
Keyboard Insecurity
A widespread influx of intrusive computer-entry tracking tools which are known to reside as parasites in many if not most unsecured computers has become the bane of trusting private information to “just any old computer,” whether in the office or at home. Some illicit tracking software is so “functionally transparent” that the user remains unaware that his/her every keystroke is being monitored, stored as a “cookie” or even sent elsewhere for dissemination. Of course, residing as a transparent parasite is the tracking software's inherent strength. Although many of the trackers are quietly installed ostensibly for “market research” by lofty and trusted companies such as Google, Microsoft, Quantcast, Comcast, MSN, Yahoo!, Dictionary.com and even the staid The Wall Street Journal there are probably just as many if not more obscure furtive trackers operated for nefarious purposes. Obviously, if a user's private text is to be assuredly kept absolutely private, the keyboard scan-code data signal representing a usual plain-language data exchange between the keyboard's keystroke-entry made by the user and the computer must be “spoiled” by a virtual in situ masking or cloaking of the keystroke character's scan-code entries. One of the principal revelations of this invention is to intercede and privatize the keyboard scan-code data signal representing individual keystroke entries before it enters the data port of an unsecured computer. This capability for intendedly cloaking the privacy of confidential portions of the keyboard's scan-code data signal flow while the public portions remain uncloaked remarkably benefits users of the “virtual desktop” computer in the cloud computing environment, because sensitive information is barred from ever leaving the users physical site.
A good example of utilizing this invention to avoid private data interception when submitting text matter into an unsecured computer might include the filling out of form data (e.g., an insurance or credit application, etc.) while being prepared for or sent to the user's office, or uploaded into cloud computing data files. In such a setting, private data such as names, social security information, telephone numbers, address information and the like are guarded by encryption while relatively innocuous supportive information, such as expansive responses to questions (viz, a description of an accident, purpose of a loan, etc.), is concurrently entered as public (e.g., unencrypted) text data. Clearly, cloaking such private data before allowing it to flow forth into an off-site environment of unknown security can go a long way to safeguarding private data files from being reaped or “scraped” for information that might lead to identity theft and other unauthorized or criminal purposes.
This invention's revelations also enables the user to protect private data intermixed with public data which might be stored on a removable media, such as a compact disc, thumb-drive, floppy disk or flash memory. As a result, the mixed content of the user's textual data may be confidentially transported between computers with a minimum of risk for covert revelation of the private text information even if the storage medium becomes lost or stolen.
In earlier art shown in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,517,569 and 5,815,577 inventor Dereck D. Clark teaches using a PIN entry device 214 for example, interposed between a keyboard 206 and a computer 204. In essence this device utilizes software in the computer to prompt entering the PIN number to activate the encryption module 214 such as a point-of-sale device, with all the successive entries into the keyboard being encrypted upon entering the computer 204. Clark does not anticipate switching back and forth between private text and public text portions of any keyboard entries, because to do so would entail awaiting an on-screen 202 prompt and re-entry of a PIN number. This earlier art therefore does not anticipate, discuss nor provide for frequent “on-the-fly” changeovers between private text and public text entries, which is the essence of the present invention. In fact the Clark teaching is especially silent regarding any provision for repetative switching back and forth between encryption and non-encryption. Under Clark such repeated alternation requires utilizing a cumbersome entry of the PIN number or its equivalent upon an occurrence of each encryption event involving a private text portion which might be sandwiched between public text portions. Clark's teaching is obviously intended and best suited for encryption of an entire keyboarding sequence involving a substantial portion of a full document, or for merely singularly submitting the PIN number and perhaps a few other private data entries.